Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
Wondering on opinions of this - in D3 should you be able to create max level (or set level, for lld/mld) characters with accompanying character specific or more generally pvp-only gear, to be allowed access exclusively to pvp-only (no chests or enemies, presumably altered npcs) games.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who detests the entry barrier for pvp currently present in D2, demanding excessive pvm grind to be competitive, or the advantage given the richer players (particularly with pp items). On the one hand builds in pvp-only areas would be even more cookie-cutter, right down to the rare rings if given total customisation. On the other hand, there would be no excuse for ducking call outs and more people pvping.
There's no reason why pvp-only games and pvp in in pvm games couldn't co-exist, I actually don't support the idea of a 'no hostile' toggle on game creation.
Diablo III will be ruined if your type of mentality is in the majority. That's all I have to say. This isn't Guild Wars II, but Diablo III. What's next, Capture the Flag? *cringe*
By my mentality, you mean wanting to be able to pvp without grinding excessively in pvm? Care to clarify that?
GW'd initial emphasis on skill>time, the foundation for any game that aspires to provide serious competition, is what attracted me to it and playing it til Nightfall. Still, much as I used to love GW pvp, I don't consider it comparable to D2 pvp, completely different player skillset being tested. And the item system is, perhaps by necessity, frankly boring in comparison.
By my mentality, you mean wanting to be able to pvp without grinding excessively in pvm?
That's more or less correct (don't feel like disbunking the strawman), and there's no need for me to waste my time clarifying. I just don't like your taste in gameplay, and I hope Blizzard doesn't either.
While I'm interested in opinions, if I simply wanted to see where people stood on this and not why they stood there I would have done a poll. I have given one reason why I wouldn't like this implemented, the fully cookie-cutter setups being used en masse, if you have others I'd like to hear them. In all competitive games resistance to removing artificial and uninteresting pvp barriers is common, e.g. Sirlin's philosophy against over-complicated comboes in 2d fighters, so I'm not at all surprised to see disagreement. I can't understand it though; more people pvping means more opposition at all levels of play, and who wants to be required to grind hours of unskilled, repetitive play just to be able to compete with an unskilled kid with top gear fresh off ebay.
I am 110% for that sort of system in WoW.
I am 110% against that system in D3.
Why am I against it for D3? Because hopefully D3 will have HC. But if you can rebuild instantly after death, what would the point of HC PvP be? The rush comes from having a fairly significant stake in the outcome of the fight, if there's no time investment, then who cares?
Why am I for it in WoW? WoW wants to be a competitive game. The rush there comes from being the best, not from earing someone on a lucky crit or avoiding death on a lucky block, and being the best shouldn't involve time spent.
Why do I want the two to not overlap? Because if I still wanted to play that sort of PvP I'd still be playing WoW or GW. Both are fun, my main b.net account has ~200 days/played, most of which is D2, my 3 warlocks combine for close ~150 days I think, maybe a bit more. If every game tries to be like WoW or GW in PvP, where would the rush of death come from?
Linear Mode
